• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

True equality

Which candidate will create equality?


  • Total voters
    24

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Equality has been the buzzword in the news lately thanks to a million dollar, forced decision by the President to finally admit to the view we all know he's had on gay marriage since way before 2008. But when equality and separation of church and state are discussed in relation to gay marriage, I think there is way too much social and media hype for people to actually understand the conversation. There are many who say that gay couples are not being treated equally until the government recognizes gay marriage, even if the government allows civil unions.


To challenge our thinking on equality, I have an analogy. Here it is:


A country is founded on our basic constitutional principles, but is founded by Jewish colonists. The government is established by the Jewish settlers and the country begins primarily as a Jewish country. However, the country soon becomes diverse with Gentiles moving in. Still, Bar Mitzvah certificates are used as part of the census process going back traditionally to the country's founding.



Due to drinking problems in the country, a law is passed that drinking is only allowed by individuals who have come of age by proof of a Bar Mitzvah certificate. This creates an obvious inequality because now only Jewish adults can drink. In the upcoming election, four candidates have offered a solution to this inequality. Here is the question: which view brings this fictitious community to true equality?



Candidate #1 offers to create a non Bar Mitzvah coming of age certificate. This certificate could be issued to Gentiles who have reached the right age and apply for it.


Candidate #2 offers to redefine the Bar Mitzvah ceremony to include Jews and Gentiles.


Candidate #3 agrees to extend the drinking age to anyone who reaches 13, but also wishes to make the government define Bar Mitzvah as a distinctly Jewish ceremony.


Candidate #4 will get rid of the drinking age and census tracking of adulthood altogether.
 
I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether. From a government stand point it is an antiquated practice. Since people have kids out of wedlock these days like it's nothing what's the point of a marriage license? To keep people from marrying their cousin? Why? they can screw anyway and make babies.
The other problem I have is people that will scream separation of church and state to justify not outlawing SS marriages BUT have no problem with most marriages being performed by a member of clergy and accepted by the state. Hello....
 
The only way to create equality in marriage is to eliminate government from marriage and stop fighting over who gets special benefits for being in a relationship.

And yes get rid of the legal drink age law. No one follows it so all it does is make people feel good that want to feel like they support something that people should follow. They can do that by supporting it and it not being a law all the same.
 
I would go with candidate 1 but you equate it with civil unions. My wife and I had a purely secular wedding and we have an actual marriage certificate even though at no point was any church, clergy member, or the mention of a god ever involved. And yet it is a marriage and not a civil union.
 
First, despite the hype, marriage is not a mainly religious thing. It has existed outside of religion for much longer than it existed in it, and that goes for any religion.

Second, in order for the government to get out of marriage they would also have to get out of recognizing any family relationships and give no benefits or rights to people just for being blood related. This is even less likely to happen than getting the government out of marriage, so lets just keep marriage and at the same time work towards ensuring that it is fairly available for everyone without causing more problems.
 
Second, in order for the government to get out of marriage they would also have to get out of recognizing any family relationships and give no benefits or rights to people just for being blood related. This is even less likely to happen than getting the government out of marriage, so lets just keep marriage and at the same time work towards ensuring that it is fairly available for everyone without causing more problems.

I find your compromise just a way to expand the government. No thanks.

That is not to say I'm not for equality, but giving more people special benefits is not how that is done. All you doing is expanding the problem.
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether. From a government stand point it is an antiquated practice. Since people have kids out of wedlock these days like it's nothing what's the point of a marriage license? To keep people from marrying their cousin? Why? they can screw anyway and make babies.
The other problem I have is people that will scream separation of church and state to justify not outlawing SS marriages BUT have no problem with most marriages being performed by a member of clergy and accepted by the state. Hello....


Yanno...maybe thats just what needs to be done...pass it either way and let it go to supreme court and just get it over...and whatever happens everyone has to live with either way...but this constant stabbing and jabbin and nitpicking and arguing and back and forth and name calling and etc etc etc...just makes the two sides harder and more resolved...someone needs to take the intitiative on an national lvl...let it get challenged and let the chips fall where they fall...
 
The hell does gay marriage have to do with equality? Human equality in itself is just part of social egalitarianism, and is hardly realistic.
 
I find your compromise just a way to expand the government. No thanks.

That is not to say I'm not for equality, but giving more people special benefits is not how that is done. All you doing is expanding the problem.

You most likely won't have a choice in this. I'm willing to bet that the SC will have the final say and they will eventually take anti-ssm laws down for the principles that I addressed.

Marriage is the only current way to make someone who is not closely enough related to you a legal relative when they are an adult. And it does so in a way that makes the chosen person the closest legal relative, which comes with its own rights and responsibilities. You are just simply not going to get the government out of marriage or family relationships any time soon. I see this as a plus. We have to have a way that doesn't require a lot of legal paperwork (which would mean a lot of wasted money to lawyers and/or notaries) to make a chosen person more important when it comes to legal/medical/end of life decisions we can't make on our own than blood relationships, which are basically you get what you get.
 
You most likely won't have a choice in this. I'm willing to bet that the SC will have the final say and they will eventually take anti-ssm laws down for the principles that I addressed.

How does that even address anything I said? I don't care.

Marriage is the only current way to make someone who is not closely enough related to you a legal relative when they are an adult.

That is not even important.

And it does so in a way that makes the chosen person the closest legal relative, which comes with its own rights and responsibilities.

So what? Why does this even matter?

You are just simply not going to get the government out of marriage or family relationships any time soon. I see this as a plus. We have to have a way that doesn't require a lot of legal paperwork (which would mean a lot of wasted money to lawyers and/or notaries) to make a chosen person more important when it comes to legal/medical/end of life decisions we can't make on our own than blood relationships, which are basically you get what you get.

I still don't see a problem. You are basically just asking the government to bail you out because of troubles you don't want to go through. Government is not there for such purposes. That is where you come in. Sorry, but your bull**** is extremely thick.
 
Last edited:
Government will never be out of marriage.........They have a stake in it...That is to have a man and woman married for the sake of any children that may come from it...........In black society 3 ot of 5 children are born out of wedlock...Chidren born out of wedlock don't have that father to influence them.......That is why crime is so hig in the black neighborhood.
 
Last edited:
Government will never be out of marriage.........They have a stake in it...That is to have a man and woman married for the sake of any children that may come from it...........In black society 3 ot of 5 children are born out of wedlock...Chidren born out of wedlock don't have that father to influence them.......That is why crime is so hig in the black neighborhood.
I don't know why I am surprized, but seeing Navy's bigotry and racism in the same post is still disturbing.
 
How does that even address anything I said? I don't care.

That is not even important.

So what? Why does this even matter?

I still don't see a problem. You are basically just asking the government to bail you out because of troubles you don't want to go through. Government is not there for such purposes. That is where you come in. Sorry, but your bull**** is extremely thick.

The government is already involved with marriage and families.

There is no asking the government for anything here because they already realize that it is important to make people happy and recognizing family legally, with having certain rights and responsibilities, benefits both the people and the government. It means less lawsuits and litigation by the truck loads in trying to decide who has what responsibility and who gets to make what decisions for whom. It means less the government has to take responsibility for when it comes to medical/end-of-life decisions for people, including the financial responsibility for any of those decisions. It also means that the government is able to hold people responsible for at least some financial responsibility for other people. You don't think the government really wants to go through the trouble of figuring out what to do with someone who has died and without legal family or someone who is willing to take responsibility, particularly financial responsibility, it is left up to the government to deal with those situations. Likely there would be many such things without some legal recognition of family.

There are tons of issues that are easily solved by just having the government legally recognize family members, and that includes legal recognition of a spouse. It is good for each individual, but it is also good for society as a whole, and very likely in the long run saves a crapload of money that the government would have to shell out for all kinds of things.
 
I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether. From a government stand point it is an antiquated practice. Since people have kids out of wedlock these days like it's nothing what's the point of a marriage license? To keep people from marrying their cousin? Why? they can screw anyway and make babies.
The other problem I have is people that will scream separation of church and state to justify not outlawing SS marriages BUT have no problem with most marriages being performed by a member of clergy and accepted by the state. Hello....

Marriage gives special rights to a couple under State and Federal law, that's why it is regulated by Govt.. Are you in favor of everyone giving up those rights?
 
Marriage gives special rights to a couple under State and Federal law, that's why it is regulated by Govt.. Are you in favor of everyone giving up those rights?

They can give all the rights of marriage to any couple without marriage...shared benefits, insurance...SS and Medicare...legal rights, decision making...everything like marriage without changing marriage itself
 
The only way to create equality in marriage is to eliminate government from marriage and stop fighting over who gets special benefits for being in a relationship.

And yes get rid of the legal drink age law. No one follows it so all it does is make people feel good that want to feel like they support something that people should follow. They can do that by supporting it and it not being a law all the same.
Get rid of "age of consent", too. Preteens and teens are perfectly capable of making up their own minds.
 
The government is already involved with marriage and families.

There is no asking the government for anything here because they already realize that it is important to make people happy and recognizing family legally, with having certain rights and responsibilities, benefits both the people and the government

Special Benefits usually assist people and government. I don't think that is shocking anyone here.

It means less lawsuits and litigation by the truck loads in trying to decide who has what responsibility and who gets to make what decisions for whom.

Those are private decisions and if people that people are supposed to handle like grown ass adults. There should be no legal recourse if people can't manage this on their own and there is no good reason for their to be.

It means less the government has to take responsibility for when it comes to medical/end-of-life decisions for people, including the financial responsibility for any of those decisions.

The government doesn't have responsibility in those fields to begin with and getting the government out of relationship includes this entire area.. You are doing nothing but framing the question around your belief system here. Its called a fallacy and you are in one right now.

It also means that the government is able to hold people responsible for at least some financial responsibility for other people.

So people and government are gaining power here to strip other people of their rights. Or are you saying that people are naturally responsible for other people in a fallacy called the social contract and there is no sort of right violation at all happening because of this power?

You don't think the government really wants to go through the trouble of figuring out what to do with someone who has died and without legal family or someone who is willing to take responsibility, particularly financial responsibility, it is left up to the government to deal with those situations.

They don't need to figure anything out and getting rid of the governments power in such matters is part of getting them out of relationships. That is where personal responsibility come in. If people can't handle this world for what it is they better grow up.
 
Government will never be out of marriage.........They have a stake in it...That is to have a man and woman married for the sake of any children that may come from it...........In black society 3 ot of 5 children are born out of wedlock...Chidren born out of wedlock don't have that father to influence them.......That is why crime is so hig in the black neighborhood.

NPMeme-HerpDerp.jpg
 
Those are private decisions and if people that people are supposed to handle like grown ass adults. There should be no legal recourse if people can't manage this on their own and there is no good reason for their to be.

You seem to be missing the fact that without legal recognition of family, then you also have no legal recognition of children either. Children are part of a person's family. Anyone can claim any children they want because no one recognizes family, legally anyway.


The government doesn't have responsibility in those fields to begin with and getting the government out of relationship includes this entire area.. You are doing nothing but framing the question around your belief system here. Its called a fallacy and you are in one right now.

The government has responsibility in protecting people in many ways that are simply subtle and benign. Requires very little actual written laws to accomplish unless people like you try to step in and decide that people are getting "special rights" through simple legal family recognition.

Plus, the government does have responsibility in ensuring that people have their remains properly taken care of, in some way, if there is no one else to do so. Who has legal responsibility if there is no legal recognition of family for taking on the financial responsibility for those who die?

So people and government are gaining power here to strip other people of their rights. Or are you saying that people are naturally responsible for other people in a fallacy called the social contract and there is no sort of right violation at all happening because of this power?

What rights are anyone losing by legal recognition of family? Give me an example here.

They don't need to figure anything out and getting rid of the governments power in such matters is part of getting them out of relationships. That is where personal responsibility come in. If people can't handle this world for what it is they better grow up.

You seem to think that the marriage license is more than just a contract between people making them family. It really isn't. The benefits come from the benefit to the government and society in people agreeing to make a commitment that requires a bit more to get out of than simply being together in a relationship with no such legal agreements.

You seem to forget that the government is in charge of the court system. Without legal recognition of family in our laws, we would have many cases completely overloading our courts dealing with who gets rights and inheritances, who is responsible for children and who the children actually in the custody of, who is responsible for financial debts owed by those who die or who are incapacitated, who can have access to military bases on the basis of dependency and live in military housing as a dependent. There are so many more that would cause major issues without legal recognition of family.
 
I believe it's important for gays to enjoy the same rights as straight people. I'm not so concerned about the term that's used to describe the process. So as far as I'm concerned, options 1, 2, and 4 in the poll would all create equality.

My favored solution to the gay marriage issue would be to get government out of 'marriage' altogether. Let marriage remain the ceremonial/religious aspects of it and government would have nothing to do with that part. Give any adult couple a license for domestic partnership or civil union or whatever you want to call it, and those give all the rights that 'marriage' does now (joint custody of children, using each others' insurance, next of kin, can make medical decisions, etc.)

My second choice would be to let the states decide themselves, but the federal government require that states recognize legal marriages performed in another state.
 
None. We are equal I am allowed to marry person that I want of another gender as so are they.
 
None. We are equal I am allowed to marry person that I want of another gender as so are they.

Which is the exact logic that kept interracial marriage bans in place.

We are all equal, I am allowed to marry any person that I want of the same race, and so are they.
 
I really don't understand why more people don't advocate removing government from marriage altogether.

Because federally banning gay marriage is really not any different than a state banning gay marriage. And NO, a person shouldn't have to move to another state simply because a bigoted majority doesn't like same sex marriage.
 
None. We are equal I am allowed to marry person that I want of another gender as so are they.

If Jane doe can marry you and I can't, how are we treated equally in the eyes of the law?
 
Because federally banning gay marriage is really not any different than a state banning gay marriage. And NO, a person shouldn't have to move to another state simply because a bigoted majority doesn't like same sex marriage.

I don't want the government to recognize marriage OF ANYONE, hetro, homo, multiple, incestual or otherwise. That's equality.
 
Back
Top Bottom